BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt.  Case No:  436 of 2008

Date of Institution:   22.04.2008

Date of Decision  :   06.10.2010

Major General M.J.S.Virk, Resident of 1093, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       M/s. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., Plot No.A-1, Sector 40/41, Surajpur-Kasna Road, Greater Noida, Industrial Development Area, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh through its Director

2]       M/s. Lally Motors Ltd., 6, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                           PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI              MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                          MEMBER

PRESENT:      Complainant in person

Sh.Karan Nehra, Adv. for OP-1.

Sh.Aftab Singh, Adv. for OP-2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint has been filed by Major General M.J.S.Virk against the OPs. According to him, the OPs have sold him a car with inherent manufacturing defects.

                The complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to replace the car free of cost and also pay him Rs.2.00 lac for mental tension and physical harassment and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

1]             The facts of the case are as under:-

                The complainant had purchased a Honda Siel car from OP No.2 on 29.4.2006 against defence quota for Rs.5,91,000/-.  After using the car, the complainant found the following defects in the car:-

(i)        Excessive noise inside the car while driving with all windows closed as well as tyre noise.

(ii)      Poor pick-up in hilly roads as well as failure to climb the hilly roads;

(iii)     LHS frt. Seat garnish adjustment entangles with trousers and sarees as well as bumpy ride.

a] Jerk in the car on release of clutch at the time of shifting of gear (now rectified);

b] Bumpy drive.

                When the above noted defects were noticed by the complainant, he brought it to the notice of OP No.2 who tried to rectify the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant.           

                The specific grievance of the complainant is that the car cannot climb on hilly roads even if only two passengers are sitting in it.  Even other smaller cars can easily take the ride. 

                The complainant sent an e-mail to OP No.1 to point out the manufacturing defect in the car but OP No.1 did not take any action to rectify the same.  The complainant has attached an affidavit of one Sh.Ravinder Singh Sohal, who ha submitted that the car made excessive noise while driving and has poor pick-up in hilly roads. 

                Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has thus filed a complaint against the OPs praying for the relief, mentioned above.

2]             After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the OPs.

                OP No.1 in its reply has submitted that after purchasing the car each time the complainant went to visit the OP for service, he always returned fully satisfied.  OP No.1 further submits that the complainant has concealed that the vehicle had met with an accident and repairs were carried out on the vehicle on payment.  The allegation of the car being defective is only to cover up the rash and negligent manner in which the car is being driven.  The car was duly checked by the Service Centre Technical Staff  against whom no grievance has ever been made by the complainant.  The initial complaint with the OP was made by the complainant in 2006.  The complaint before the District Forum has been filed  in 2008 and till now the complainant is not satisfied even though the OPs have tried their very best to help him. 

                Moreover, a defective car can not be driven as extensively as has been used by the complainant. On few occasions a few minor defects have only been pointed out. Every defect as pointed out by the complainant in the car was duly checked and rectified by the staff of the OPs.  Denying that the car cannot be used on hilly roads or that it has any inherent manufacturing defect, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                OP No.2 in its reply has submitted that the car was purchased on 29.4.2006 and carried a warranty of 2 years.  The complainant is entitled to replacement of parts suffering from manufacturing defects but not a complete replacement of the vehicle as demanded by him. The car of the complainant had been brought to the workshop a number of times.  All job cards have been appended for ready reference as annexures.  From a perusal of the job cards, it is evident that the car has been brought to the workshop with very normal defects, which can be anticipated by the normal running of the vehicle.  The Service Manager personally test drove the vehicle to check the abnormal noise.  The car was checked on the Barog slope and found to be OK.  The car has a steady run and the complainant is not harassed on any account.  Even otherwise the car is now beyond warranty. They have therefore prayed for the dismissal of the complaint alleging that the complainant is making false allegations just to get the car replaced. 

3]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence and documents placed on record by the parties. 

4]             The case has been argued on a number of dates before this Forum.  Each time both parties have placed on record additional documents to prove their stand and rebuttals to the documents placed on record by the other parties.  

5]             The complainant is not satisfied with his vehicle.  Each time the OPs have been requested by this Forum to check and verify the defect in the car.  When the matter was not being sorted out, the Ops filed an application for cross-examination of the complainant and his associates.  They also filed interrogatories by way of affidavits before the Forum, which was duly answered/replied by the complainant.

6]             A technical report of Honda City Siel Cars has also been placed on record by the OPs.  Photographs about the visit of the vehicle to Barog have also been placed on the file.  Affidavit of various technical stall of OP No.2-Prestige Honda have also been placed on record to show that the vehicle did not suffer from any defect.  The car has also been examined by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Garg, Workshop Controller of M/s Prestige Honda, Chandigarh, holding diploma in Automobile Engineering, who has stated by way of affidavit that the car has no defect.  The interrogatories filed by the OPs and the reply to the interrogatories by the complainant have also been placed on record.

7]             At the time of arguments, the complainant was asked about the distance covered by the car so far.  The complainant submitted that the car had done over 40,000 kilometers.  The complainant was also asked if he had any problems with the car on any other road.  The complainant submitted that the car was running properly every where else.  It seems that only when he had to climb Barog, the car refused to comply.  This small issue cannot be a cause to allege an inherent manufacturing defect in a vehicle. The photographs and evidence placed on record by the OPs have shown that the car has been able to climb hilly roads. 

                In this regard, we must refer to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Bhubaneshwar Development Authority Vs. Susanta Kumar Mishra, (2009) 4 SCC 684, wherein it was held :-

“Any Fora under the 1986 Act before granting any relief to a complainant, should be satisfied that the complaint relates to any of the matters specified in S.2(1)(C), and that the complainant has alleged and made out either unfair or restrictive trade practice by a trader, or defects in the goods sold, or any deficiency in a service rendered, or charging of excessive price for the goods sold, or offering of any goods hazardous to life and safety without displaying information regarding contents, etc. – If none of these is alleged and made out, the complaint must be rejected.”

8]             The complainant has not been able to prove by the job cards placed on record that there was any inherent manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question.  The complainant has only relied on the affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh Sohal to state that the car has an inherent manufacturing defect.  However, the qualification of Sh.Ravinder Singh Sohal have not been mentioned in the affidavit to show his expertise on the subject matter.  Moreover, the vehicle has already run over 40000 kms and is being regularly used by the complainant. Compensation cannot be awarded to the complainant unless a loss or injury has been proved on the basis of evidence. 

9]             In view of the above findings, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

                Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

6^th Oct., 2010                                                   Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                      Sd/-  

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

“om”